2014 QCCQ 6538, 2014 QCCQ 6538

Girard c. Oxford Properties Group 2014 QCCQ 6538 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-131973-127 DATE: June 3, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CAMIL GIRARD […] Verdun, QC, […] Plaintiff v.

OXFORD PROPERTIES GROUP 1250 René-Lévesque West, Suite 410 Montreal, QC, H3B 4W8 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff, Camil Girard, sues the manager of 1250 René-Lévesque West, known as Oxford Properties Group alleging damages resulting from his having been trapped in an elevator in the building on December 14, 2011. [ 2 ] Mr Girard alleges that he was imprisoned in the elevator between 12:30 p.m. and 14:00 p.m. [ 3 ] He alleges damages, namely that he had to rearrange his departures for an overseas trip. [ 4 ] He alleges a total of $3,350.00 to arrange tickets and $1,845.00 for miscellaneous expenses due to his rushed departure. [ 5 ] Oxford contests, asserting that the interruption of service in the elevator was the result of an unforeseen and unforeseeable mechanical issue insofar as it was concerned, and that the elevator was immobilised for a shorter duration than that alleged by Mr Girard.

He spent only 37 minutes in the cabin, which, it alleges, is within acceptable norms for this type of interruption of service. [ 6 ] Oxford also takes issue on causality, arguing that it was possible for Mr Girard to arrive at the airport to catch his 17:00 o’clock departure because he was freed from the elevator at 13:50 p.m. [ 7 ] Oxford pleads, moreover, that the damages Mr Girard claims are too indirect to be recoverable. [ 8 ] At the hearing, Mr Girard was absent and the simple answer to this case is that it fails because Mr Girard did not attend the hearing to prove his damages.

It later came to light that Mr Girard had passed away prior to the trial, but his heirs did not notify the opposing party and the Court. Because there was no notice, the case was not suspended, and proceeded in the usual way. [ 9 ] The Court heard the testimony of Joseph Pincin of Oxford Properties Group. Mr Pincin explained to the Court that the elevator remained blocked at the top floor after Mr Girard entered. The interruption of service began at 13:21 p.m. The building security became aware of the problem when Mr Girard called on the intercom in the elevator at 13:23 p.m.

The company responsible for maintenance, Otis, received an urgent call from the building security at 13:26 p.m. and arrived on the scene at 13:35 p.m. [ 10 ] Mr Girard was freed from the elevator at 13:58 p.m., some 37 minutes after entering the elevator. [ 11 ] Mr Pincin informed the Court that it was an isolated incident that it was handled according to all the applicable protocols and that no fault or deficiency in the manner and time of response was noted. [ 12 ] Oxford maintained a full service contract so that the service company, Otis, responds immediately to this type of call.

[ 13 ] The origins of the event were reviewed by Otis and documentation in the file taken from an incident report and other business records provides some technical information that is not particularly accessible to a lay person. [ 14 ] It seems probable however that Mr Girard was never in any danger and the Court agrees that his inconvenience, while regrettable, did not result from any fault on the part of Oxford. It is important to keep in mind that Oxford is sued as the manager, not the owner-lessor of the building.

The situation might have been different if the Plaintiff had proved an obligation of result, but in this case, the duty of the manager of the building was to act reasonably, an obligation of means. The facts do not show any failure on Oxford’s behalf in that regard. [ 15 ] If Mr Girard had provided evidence of his pecuniary loss, which he did not, the Court would have been of the view that the expenses relating to arranging of the flight were remote from, and not a direct result of the event.

The 37 minute delay in his activities that day cannot be considered to have resulted in the need to make significant changes to his travel plans. [ 16 ] This is a case where the Court will not impose costs against the Plaintiff. BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the application, without costs. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 4 th , 2014